An outline of the cost and how we pay for it then it is worthless. I suspect it will have the tired old line about the wealthy not paying enough.

Which while true is quickly becoming Sanders answer to just about every quedtion.

What I want to see and hear are numbers. It will cost about this much and we pay for it by raising these taxes by about this amount.

Medicaid picks up most of the cost of long term nursing home care, anyway. It kicks in after grandma goes broke.

So the fedgov already pays for a large part.

Homecare is not an option for many. It is exhausting to care for an invalid.

Every other civilized country in the world has it.

"Rich" country would have done too.

http://factmyth.com/factoids/the-us-is-the-only-very-highly-developed-country-without-universal-healthcare/

Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan, even Costa Rica

The Republicans would have us believe that Australia is a "socialist" country cause getting sick while poor isn't a death sentence?

If long-term care is a new component added to his bill, then the cost will skyrocket.

Pied Piper was also leading the way and that way was disastrous just as most of Bernie's "ways" are.

Democrats don't like it. The Democrats are taking employee subsidized insurance away...taxes, taxes . It will be a blood bath. It could cost folks their insurance when we have no way to enact a new plan...no guarantees we get the Senate. And SCOTUS is given cover to destroy the ACA. I could not imagine anything more destructive than to run on Medicare for all at this moment.

...in the Congress virtually every year since 1943, starting with John Dingell SENIOR. This is nothing new.

I thought Sanders introduced this in 2017? What happened to that one?

The fact that Kamala Harris is "supporting" Sanders' 2017 bill is irrelevant. I'm sure she has supported, and will continue to support any similar bills that are introduced in the Senate until she becomes President. On the other hand, this thread is about Sanders' NEW bill, which hasn't been introduced yet. Surely you're not saying she's supporting something that hasn't even been revealed yet.

Now, back to the subject - my question was "leading the way" on what? Healtcare for all? If he was "leading the way" he would have introduced it back in 1943 before John Dingell Sr. introduced such a bill. Or he would have done so before John Dingell Jr. introduced it every year he was in Congress. Or he would have done so before Debbie Dingell (Jr.'s wife and Sr.'s daughter in law) introduced it.

So, the bottom line is yes, he's "reintroducing" a bill he introduced two years ago, but he certainly isn't "leading the way" on this issue.

One more question, what happened to his 2017 bill, and if it went nowhere is this "reintroduction" just a publicity stunt?

the Medicare for All label that HAS been introduced every year for the past 70 and more by DEMOCRATS. Btw, John Dingell JR just died at 92. If you're sincere that Sanders warrants respect for MfA, then you really should respect BIG TIME both John Dingells, Jr. and Sr., and many other Democrats who'd or who've been at it far longer than Sanders.

The soundtrack from Benny Hill would accompany those moves quite nicely.

"Elizabeth Warren , Cory Booker , Kamala Harris and Kirsten Gillibrand — back Sanders' single-payer plan, which would replace the current mix of private and government health insurance in the U.S. with a new system run by the government. But they have also signed onto at least one version of a public option."

I think there will be a healthy debate on healthcare. We will largely unify around the approach favored by our eventual nominee, whoever that ends up being.

That part of the article was "below the fold."

They shave money away from Medicaid via block grants to States. They advocate changing the Social Security C.O.L.A. formula to shave future retirement benefits. They reduce "food stamp" benefits etc. etc. all supposedly to cut deficits. Then they balloon the deficit by a trillion dollars with yet another tax cut for the rich.

They introduce work requirements for Medicaid and eliminate the estate tax costing our treasury billions to help a tiny percent of one percent of tax payers stay uber rich. They always say the money is there for upgrading nuclear weapons, or building a border wall form sea to shining sea. They refuse to plug huge tax loopholes that support the fossil fuel industry's exploration for new ways to hasten global warming. But significant subsidies for mass transit? Can't afford them they say.

They consign tens if not hundreds of millions of Americans to living from paycheck to paycheck with no means to pay for any emergency. They fight to take away access to health insurance from the poor. But they subsidize corporate Agri-Business. There is not a single tax cut that they don't justify as beneficial to the economy. There is not a single raise in minimum wages that they do not attack as harmful to the economy.

All of the social programs that FDR implemented were deemed economically nonviable by then prevailing conventional wisdom that only crashed when the stock market did. It is not like we are fighting to make America's tax system more progressive than it was back in the 50's. We are fighting to restoring it to be half as progressive as it was in the 50's.

That's fine. Biden won't be foolish enough to proclaim a plan that takes insurance away. It will help narrow the primary field ...maybe get Sen Sanders out faster too,

and they have exact numbers for how much it will cost and how it will be paid for.

Bernie is just slogans, platitudes and opportunistic photo ops.

Insurance away.

But signing on to a bill means that ii is a way forward that they can support.

It is "Medicare for those who want it"

Buttigieg supports that.

than a lead balloon.

a final bill will be negotiated down. But a vision is what’s needed. Just like Medicare expanded coverage in 1972 to include disabled, people with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) requiring dialysis or kidney transplant, and people 65 or older that select Medicare coverage or the 80s where hospice care was added.

They are smart to go with the plan that voters want that's being promoted by Bernie... that's just smart politics.


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

Most of whom already have private insurance. I'm all for covering everyone who needs it. But my insurance is 't broke, so please don't try to fix it.

Would you like it if the govt paid the bill and you paid less in copays and deductibles and premiums when you saw your doctor? Or do you just love your insurance provider? If your employer decides to save some money by getting rid of your current plan and offering you a different plan with a higher deductible from your same insurance provider, would you still love them? If your employer switched plans and your Doctor wasn’t included in your plan, would you still love your insurance provider? If you wanted to change jobs but your new employer had a different plan for you, would you love your new insurance provider as much?

Me? I love having healthCARE. I had no feelings whatsoever for the insurance company when I was working other than annoyance every time my employer switched it up on me. When I had my own business, I loved having healthCARE but hated how expensive and difficult it was to secure actual care. Now that I and my husband have Medicare and my husband has an incurable but “manageable” cancer, I love having healthCARE and am grateful every day that no insurance CEO is making millions each year by denying us care.

But I’m happy you are in love with your insurance provider and hope do not lose your job or have your employer change your plan on you. Best of luck!

I am not convinced that Sanders can actually cuts my real costs and provides better care. My mother has Medicare with a supplement. The supplement provides significant benefit but is also expensive. I have costs that my insurance covers, but neither Medicare or the supplement covers.

I could end up paying quite a bit more with increased taxes, a supplement and higher out of pocket costs, while my employer may figure out a way to pocket their contribution rather pay it out in their own higher taxes.

as expensive as my premiums and deductibles were before. And those supplemental are provided by private insurance companies which would disappear and be absorbed into Medicare. The supplemental N plan we have pays for the 20% that Medicare A doesn’t pay. The new plan would not have an 80/20 split so no supplemental would be needed.

The Advantage plans that private ins companies sell are cheaper because they are subsidized by the government and are more like HMOs with certain doctors and hospitals. They may give you a health club option but they are terribly limiting if you are actually seriously ill. As we discovered when our dear friend who had one was diagnosed with a brain tumor.

And since almost every other country has managed to provide comprehensive care to its citizens covering everyone at a lower cost with in many cases better outcomes I’m sure a rich country like we are can figure it out. And what a treat it would be not to have over a million bankruptcies caused by medical expenses each year.

I’m glad you have other benefits in your employer provided insurance. You may wind up being one of the few who gets less. But many more will gain. And who knows? By the time this goes into effect your employer may have changed your plan to something less and you’ll be happy about the change.

or even that there are just a few people who would lose. It's just an assumption you are making without any evidence.

Certainly people have not acted like they thought they were benefiting when faced with previous attempts to implement health insurance changes. Obamacare cost me and many others money by reducing FSA maximums and coverage.

Looking at my mothers case, her premiums for Medicare plus the supplement are almost as high as my premium for my whole family. But it is not an HMO style, she can go to any doctor who takes Medicare, and she has had some very serious illnesses that were expensive but fully covered. It does not offer a health club.

You point to other countries. What I am describing is the same as how Germany and Switzerland does it. Switzerland has the second highest costs in the world, next to us. In a recent referendum, they voted against single payer.

Yes, we can do better. There other things we can do that are not insurance related. But Medicare for All is not necessarily an improvement for most people and you will likely have a difficult time convincing people who already have insurance.

the possibility of joining the rest of the developed world, maybe the movement behind it will also be reflected in additional seats being won by Democrats. And, as I said in my earlier post, there is room to negotiate down and add pieces in moving forward as we did in the 70s and 80s to Medicare.

If we look to only advocating policies that can be passed with this current Congress we can’t advocate for anything. Advocating for policies is a way of showing what our vision is for America. Medicare in some form was tried by Truman and also JFK but not passed until LBJ. It’s about WHO we are as a country in spite of Republican opposition.

Or are you simply pretending your premise is implicitly relevant, and are unable to locate the valid answers on your own?

(I'm guessing it's the second, regardless of the allegation to the contrary...)

Still haven't seen any indication that any advocate has built a strategy to generate the actual support it needs in Congress (and "Bernie getting elected" won't change that).

Add to which, I don't see any sign that a majority of voters care about it ENOUGH to make it a sink or swim issue in the Election.

1. What would the MFA plan cost a family of 4 earning $50k a year in dollars-per-year? $75000? $100000?

2. Combined with FICA taxes, what % of a family's yearly income would go to the Feds to pay for MFA and SS.

3. Would this end the employer- provided option?

Enough nurses? Enough instructors? Enough healthcare clinics? Enough everything?

I kind of, almost, don’t give a shit about the cost, because that...could...possibly.. be worked out by reasonable people. As it stands now, Medicare under-reimburses providers and facilities, and doesn’t cover quite enough in many cases, depending on income and certain awful supplemental insurance for people who develop chronic problems. Also, right now Medicare contracts with private insurance, is that going to stay or go?


Take durable medical equipment. Go ahead and get a wheelchair through Medicare. Hope nothing goes wrong with it. Find out the costs vs the value because DMEs have become quite the racket.

I hate slogan campaigning, and for Medicare for All to be viable there’s a LOT more than cost to talk about.

What is the pathway to Medicare for All? I can tell you we were scrambling just with the ACA and the additional insured people. Happy to do it. I love taking care of people.

What does it look like from having enough PCPs (if you just spent a decade in school, and you do a fellowship in, say, nephrology and that’s what you want to do, that means you are only taking people with kidney problems, soooo, maybe incentives? We offer certain incentives for people to work in hard to reach areas, empower ARNPs with independent diagnostic and prescriptive abilities nationwide?

These are serious questions, and I hope anyone pushing M4A has answers for them.